ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Attributes and Trade-Offs Impacting Contraceptive Choice: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify the preferences and trade‑offs of women selecting contraception and of providers prescribing contraception, and to identify the attributes most influential in their decision‑making. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) evaluated seven randomized attributes: effectiveness, mode of administration, return to fertility, cardiovascular (CV) risk, immediate postpartum eligibility, breastfeeding compatibility, and amenorrhea risk. Participants across the United States (US) were recruited from February-May 2025 using web-based market research panels. Women completed 12 choice tasks. Providers completed a DCE for three patient profiles to capture context‑specific decision‑making. A total of 307 women and 305 healthcare providers (HCPs) were included. Women were eligible if they were 18-49 years old, resided in the US, and considered using prescription contraception in the past 12 months. HCPs were eligible if they specialized in obstetrics and gynecology or family medicine, practiced in the US for at least 2 years, prescribed contraception in their routine practice, had familiarity with all contraceptive options, and had written at least 50 contraception prescriptions annually.Relative importance (RI), reflecting the overall contribution of each attribute to decision‑making, and willingness to trade-off (WTT) estimates were derived from preference weights (or marginal utilities for continuous attributes). Preferences were estimated using conditional logistic regression. Results: Women most valued effectiveness (RI=30.7%), followed by low CV risk (RI=24.0%). Trade-offs favored daily oral consumption (WTT=3.04) but not a delayed return to fertility (WTT=-2.05). When considering long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), women favored arm placement over uterine placement (WTT=-0.51). HCPs prioritized effectiveness irrespective of patient profile (range of RI=37.0%-40.1%) and consistently preferred LARC attributes over those of oral or injectable methods. Conclusion: Incorporating stated preferences into shared decision-making, supported by education emphasizing autonomy across all methods, provides an opportunity to align contraceptive care with women's goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.